4.7 Review

Markers of inflammation and their association with muscle strength and mass: A systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

AGEING RESEARCH REVIEWS
卷 64, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.arr.2020.101185

关键词

Cytokines; C-reactive protein; Inflammation; Interleukin-6; Muscle strength; Muscle mass; Muscle atrophy; Sarcopenia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Chronic inflammation has been associated with sarcopenia and its components skeletal muscle strength and muscle mass. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the relationship between systemic inflammation, muscle strength and/or muscle mass in adults. Methods: An electronic search using keywords such as 'acute phase proteins, cytokines and sarcopenia, muscle mass, muscle strength' was conducted via Pubmed, Web of Science and Embase from inception until the 30th of June 2020. A meta-analysis using correlation data was performed to determine the overall relationship between inflammation and muscle strength and muscle mass in adults. Results: Overall, 168 articles; 149 cross-sectional articles (n = 76,899 participants, 47.0 % male) and 19 longitudinal articles (n = 12,295 participants, 31.9 % male) met inclusion criteria. Independent of disease state, higher levels of C reactive protein (CRP), Interleukin (IL)-6 and Tumor necrosis factor (TNF)alpha were associated with lower handgrip and knee extension strength (CRP; r = 0.10, p < 0.001, IL-6; r = -0.13, p < 0.001, TNF alpha; r = -0.08, p < 0.001 and CRP; r = -0.18, p < 0.001, IL-6; r = -0.11, p < 0.001, TNF alpha; r = -0.13, p < 0.001 respectively) and muscle mass (CRP; r = -0.12, p < 0.001, IL-6; r = -0.09, p < 0.001, TNF alpha; r = -0.15, p < 0.001). Furthermore, higher levels of systemic inflammatory markers appeared to be associated with lower muscle strength and muscle mass over time. Conclusion: Higher levels of circulating inflammatory markers are significantly associated with lower skeletal muscle strength and muscle mass.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据